Kendrick, David v. Hertz Corporation
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DAVID KENDRICK, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0164 v. 5 5 THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 54). Defendant’s opposition to the said motion to compel was based upon its pending motion for stay of discovery. The record reflects that Defendant’s said motion for stay was denied by order (Docket No. 59), entered October 23, 2006. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Discovery is GRANTED. Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 82 Filed: 12/04/07 Page 1 of 2 Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp. 2005-CV-0164 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 2. …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00164/pdf/USCOURTS-vid-1_05-cv-00164-1.pdf
SHA-256 dff7d459b67a48347dbefe0451e41ddd900da362040f79d5b3aef463883dd34f
Re-using this document
two independent grounds: a work of the United States Government under 17 USC 105, AND a judicial opinion, which is an edict of government and uncopyrightable by anyone including the court that wrote it
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-dff7d459b67a
Document text
DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. CROIX 5 DAVID KENDRICK, 5 5 Plaintiff, 5 2005-CV-0164 v. 5 5 THE HERTZ CORPORATION, 5 5 Defendant. 5 ____________________________________5 TO: Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Chetema Lucas Francis, Esq. ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the parties’ Joint Stipulation Regarding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Discovery (Docket No. 54). Defendant’s opposition to the said motion to compel was based upon its pending motion for stay of discovery. The record reflects that Defendant’s said motion for stay was denied by order (Docket No. 59), entered October 23, 2006. Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Responses to Discovery is GRANTED. Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 82 Filed: 12/04/07 Page 1 of 2 Kendrick v. The Hertz Corp. 2005-CV-0164 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel 2. Defendant shall serve upon counsel for Plaintiff, within twenty (20) days from the date of entry of this order, its responses to interrogatories and demand for production of documents propounded by Plaintiff. ENTER: Dated: December 4, 2007 /s/ GEORGE W. CANNON, JR. U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE Case: 1:05-cv-00164-RLF-GWC Document #: 82 Filed: 12/04/07 Page 2 of 2